11–20 of 259 posts
Has it become "nobody got fired for using AWS"?
Doesn’t bode well for Google’s cloud ambitions, but squares with what the marketplace looks like (clients absolutely hungry for those with Azure experience and AWS to a lesser extent). Azure is unpleasant to work with, but the deals are apparently being made (mostly outside of tech centric firms). Kudos to MS’ sales teams.
^^^ spot on. My thought while reading the article was how poor Google’s sales and customer support culture is across the entire company that has led to non-tech firms picking solutions with Azure and AWS who invest heavily on the support side.
After 3 emails spread over several months I eventually got a note saying I should expect to talk with my Google Cloud salesguy, but it can only happen over a Hangout. And not any hangout - they sent a cheap ass Android "netbook" that I had to physically go to the post office to get, that the Hangout call was supposed to happen through.
I did get it from the post office, noted that it took minutes to start up, then gave it away and never heard from GC again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but: > That report notes that "insufficient interest" from Epic customers in Google is behind the decision to focus efforts instead with those cloud competitors. It seems like if you run Epic Systems at Google, you were in a minority that is apparently not worth supporting. This seems less like Epic putting their thumb on the scale, and more like their customers putting their thumb on the scale.
I have only limited experience in the healthcare space when it comes to cloud selection, but I can tell you that every single healthcare company I work with uses Azure. They don't do it because it may or may not be right for their needs. They pick Azure because somewhere along the line the mid- and upper-level managers, including director-level IT people, have been made to believe that anything other than Windows is…
Lastly, all three of AWS, Azure and GCS do try and make a big deal of their HIPAA compatible instances, but whatever the compliance officer at a company is used to is what will get by the easiest - honestly anyone who has a compliance officer that is happy to accept a non-on-premises solution should count themselves as lucky.
All that said - I'd be amazed if MSFT hasn't invested heavily into advertising to cement this decision, but I'd also be surprised if AWS hasn't been trying to dump even more money in there - google just seems a bit clueless when it comes to the convention game and these sort of closed circles where everyone plays golf on tuesdays.
Saying that, I wonder if Epic has a plan to go after smaller players who might be using Google Apps and fears google’s dominance.
Doesn’t bode well for Google’s cloud ambitions, but squares with what the marketplace looks like (clients absolutely hungry for those with Azure experience and AWS to a lesser extent). Azure is unpleasant to work with, but the deals are apparently being made (mostly outside of tech centric firms). Kudos to MS’ sales teams.
^^^ spot on. My thought while reading the article was how poor Google’s sales and customer support culture is across the entire company that has led to non-tech firms picking solutions with Azure and AWS who invest heavily on the support side.
I didn't really understand what this meant until the very end of the actual MSNBC article. At least I think I get it now. “We’ve historically seen hospital systems make these decisions independently of their medical record provider,” said Aneesh Chopra, the president of health-technology company CareJourney and the former chief technology officer of the United States. “It will be interesting to see if Epic’s thumb on…
Has it become "nobody got fired for using AWS"?
Imagine being that insecure in what you do. What were they looking for? A non-compete from Google? Innovate or die.